No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2012
It is true that international institutions do not command the primary loyalty among the peoples of the world that would allow them the opportunity to legislate in favor of social justice. They do, however, command strong political backing from the most important political actors in world politics – namely, states. In addition, virtually all international organizations integrate nongovernmental organizations into their deliberative processes. Present globalization trends are increasing economic disparities between and within countries, but most regimes do provide poorer states with special provisions that can be used to protect their economic interests. Also, some have clearly benefited from economic openness. In the long term, it will be surprising if states do not address the problem of growing economic gaps through international regimes, although the likely adequacy of their responses is open to question.
1 For example, see Zacher, Mark, Governing Global Networks: International Regimes for Transportation and Communications (Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press, 1996Google Scholar); and The United Nations and Global Commerce (New York: United Nations, 1999Google Scholar).
2 Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Post-World War II Economic Order,” International Organization 36 (1982), pp. 379–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Ruggie, John Gerard, Winning the Peace: America and the World Order in the New Era (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996Google Scholar); Weber, Steven, “Shaping the Postwar Balance of Power: Multilateralism in NATO,” in Ruggie, John Gerard, ed., Multilateralism Matters (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 233–92Google Scholar.